Annotated Bibliography

Pedrhom Nafisi

ENC 1102

Dr. Taylor

Annotated Bibliography

Encryption is Innocent and Should Not Plead Guilty for Terrorism

Goodnight, Eric Z. "What is Encryption, and Why Are People Afraid of It?" 30 November 2015. Web. 14 February 2016.

            This source written by Eric Z Goodnight was one of the most well rounded sources I found as it has a variety of information pertaining to what encryption actually is and why encryption is suddenly a relevant topic in regards to terrorism and politics. It explains initially that encryption works by taking data and scrambling it into gibberish. From there, to decrypt it back into data you use a method called ciphering which involves the usage of a key that shows what the original data was encrypted into character by character. This information concisely summarizes encryption and holds relevancy to explain encryption in very brief detail before expressing my topic and stance. Another important piece of information from this article is its details on ISIL. Explaining how ISIL uses popular mobile messaging applications such as WhatsApp, which encrypts all data sent, creates the bridge between terrorism and encryption. Goodnight furthermore describes how the government has approached immense electronic companies such as Apple and Google, asking them to create a secret backdoor decryption method. The problem with this is explained concisely by Apple CEO Tim Cook in which he says “You can’t have a backdoor that’s only for the good guys.” This heavily supports my argument that acting against encryption will not do anything as trying to break holes in our security will only allow enemies to exploit that hole.

Brandom, Russell. "The Five Big Lies of the Encryption Debate." The Verge. Vox Media, 12 Jan. 2016. Web. 17 Feb. 2016

            Brandom Russell in this source makes a list of five concrete points that supports the idea that banning encryption will not help prevent terrorism or any other related actions, all of which supports my argument. His first point is that the government is saying that criminals have “gone dark” or in other words are able to communicate behind the court’s back. The problem with this is that terrorism is no harder to track than it was fifteen years ago as trying to track down a private file or get access to a phone call transcript is just as difficult and unethical as asking for encrypted data to be decrypted. Just because the information is secure in another fashion does not make it more acceptable for the government to want access to our data and this fact supports the idea that the court should not even be trying to go after encrypted data in the first place. Russell’s second point is that the government is already trying to talk with tech companies in order for them to get the information they want. The government words their side of the argument in a way to give the false idea that their access to information is either all or nothing; however, it is a fact that in this digital age access to information has been at its peak and the right court order can allow police to go through a person’s Gmail or iCloud account. Power is something the government already has a lot of in regards to our personal information and so banning encryption will not change anything for the good of the common man. The last three points he makes all point to the same idea that the government banning encryption will favor the government more on the topic of having the power to see anyone’s chat logs rather than prevent terrorism. Russell fully lays down the facts and uses it to promote an idea that banning encryption will not prevent terrorism like the government says it will and this supports my argument completely while keeping relevancy.

Brown, Aaron. "WhatsApp BAN: Cameron's EU Referendum will Decide Fate of Encrypted Messaging App." Sunday Express. 15 July 2015. Web. 14 February 2016.

            The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister David Cameron has created a proposal that will ban encrypted messaging applications from being used. Brown explains that Cameron is taking this action as encrypted messaging apps create “a guaranteed safe space for terrorists, criminals and pedophiles to operate beyond the reach of law.” This is extremely relevant to my topic as there is much evidence from my other sources that encryption does not make data any more inaccessible than it was a decade ago. I can use this information to create an argument that this guaranteed safe spot is no safer than chatting over the phone ten years ago as it is just as illegal to listen in on phone conversations as it is to track conversations through text messages. Brown also explains how this encryption ban ties in to a previous issue called the Snoopers’ Charter which is a proposed bill that would allow the United Kingdom to force internet service providers to track all data from their consumer’s activities. This includes everything from internet browsing activity, email, phone messaging services, and all other activities that require an internet connection. What Brown shows with this is that the United Kingdom has created plans in the past to track the common man’s information before. This information can be used to help bring up the argument that the United Kingdom’s government has tried to gain the ability to access all data before, and with the current trend of how they have created bill after bill with the same goal in mind shows that even if the proposed ban on encryption fails to pass, there will be a new issue that will once again cause the government to try to track all data once again.

Zou, Cliff. "Research On The Encryption Debate." E-mail interview. 15 Mar. 2016.

Cliff Zou is a UCF staff member in the Department of Computer Science with a Master’s Degree in Digital Forensics and a Ph.D. in Electrical & Computer Engineering. I got in touch and interviewed him via e-mail and asked him three simple questions in regards to the encryption debate in order to get the opinion of a local expert. My first question was “Do you think encryption should be what the government is targeting in regards to reducing terrorist activity?” Zou responded by saying that targeting terrorism is only one subject area that the government can focus on by going after encryption. He also says that many criminal cases will be affected by this as the current encryption debate revolving around Apple and the FBI is due to a criminal case, not one regarding terrorism. This information helps broaden my scope of what banning encryption potentially effects. After that, my second question was “Should the government try to make companies create a backdoor in their security software so that the government can access information that could be potentially dangerous? What would creating a backdoor possibly cause in regards to the common man's privacy?” Zou answers that the government should definitely not force companies to create backdoors in their software. He further explains that a backdoor that is created for the government can be found and exploited by hackers to commit cyber-attacks. This would cause not only for Apple’s products to be less safe, but less sales for them since consumers will move to a different device in which its security against cyber-attacks is more superior. This information is useful in regards to providing more negative consequences that weakening encryption creates as Apple will suffer as a company. Lastly, I asked “David Cameron, British Prime Minister, has created a proposal that will ban online messaging applications such as iMessage and Snapchat that uses encryption to protect the user's privacy. Will this help prevent issues in regards to terrorism or will it create more problems than it stops?” To which Zou replied that even if the ban goes through, technology is constantly advancing and new ways of security to hide from the eyes of the government can be created. An example he creates is the use of end-to-end encryption through the use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) which does not rely on the encryption methods of iMessage or any other application based encryption. This information is very important in helping me create the idea that the ban is futile in the first place since people will find ways to work around it.

Isaac, Mike. "Explaining Apple’s Fight with the F.B.I." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

            Isaac in this article summarizes what is currently going on between the company Apple and the FBI. A federal court ordered Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking an iPhone of an attacker who murdered fourteen people San Bernardino, California in December 2015. The FBI wants to use brute force in order to gain access to the attacker’s data, but the iPhone has a security measure in which its data is deleted after ten failed password attempts. I can use this information in my essay to refer to an actual court case that is occurring between two big groups. According to Isaac, the issue with what the FBI is asking is that to bypass the password lock Apple would have to create a new version of the iPhone’s iOS software with specific instructions that allows the FBI to get infinite attempts. This new version along with the software could potentially unlock any iPhone in someone’s possession and for such a powerful program to exist is potentially dangerous if gotten into the wrong hands. This is very important because with the FBI having access to such a program could allow them to possibly break the fourth amendment without the knowledge of the people. The NSA has done something similar in the past with them spying on people’s information so it is not hard to think that the FBI would not do the same. this information to further push the point that creating a backdoor like this can be used against us and so it should not exist. The same engineers that created the encryption programs on the iOS software should not have to create their own countermeasures against the defenses they made is a quote Isaac used which sums up his opinions on the debate very well.

Grothaus, Michael. "Apple vs FBI: Encryption, IPhones & Terrorism." Know Your Mobile. Dennis Publishing, 10 Mar. 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

Grothaus begins his article by explaining the current fight going on between the FBI and Apple over encryption. He adds on that giant technology companies such as Facebook and Google are fully supporting Apple. This is important as it shows that other tech companies do not want to be forced into the creation of a backdoor in their products either. If the FBI wins the case over Apple, then it is very plausible that the FBI could go after other companies as well to complete their mission of creating backdoors in all products in order for them to have access to all consumer information. Grothaus continues by saying that the FBI could possibly continue to increase the amount of spying they do if they win the case. He uses a quote from a news article called The Guardian that says “If the FBI wins in its case against Apple to help it unlock the San Bernardino killer’s iPhone 5C, it won’t be long before the government forces Apple to turn on users’ iPhone cameras and microphones to spy on them.” This is a very scary idea to think about, knowing that at any moment the government could be looking through your camera at your personal space. This helps support the idea that the FBI should not gain more power than it already has because if encryption is meaningless, then the FBI constantly try to get access to more data. Grothaus uses reasoning to infer how this case potentially effects the whole world. He makes a very important point that this backdoor will allow the United States to access all iPhones, regardless of the phone’s location. This means the United States would be able to spy on anyone all over the world. This is a huge and crucial point as now the people that are effected is every person around the world with an iPhone and other countries would not want that in the slightest. What they would want, is also access to the backdoor software and the amount of people that have the potential to spy on your data would exponentially increase and this is a huge hole in everyone with an iPhone’s security.

Brandom, Russell. "Why the NSA Is Staying out of Apple's Fight with the FBI." The Verge. Vox Media, 09 Mar. 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

            Brandom asks and answers an important question in this article which is why the NSA has remained silent in regards to the encryption debate between Apple and the FBI. What Brandom says is that the NSA has actually explained that many of their key officials have decided to side with Apple. This is both surprising and extremely relevant to my topic since the NSA is a government agency that would seem to want the backdoor to exist in iPhones since the NSA has been confirmed to have the ability to spy on people and their data. The reasoning of this according to Brandom is due to the differences between how the NSA and FBI investigates cases and infiltrates technology. The NSA tends to work in a covert fashion and they try to do all their work in the dark and that is the exact opposite with this case and the matter in which the FBI is handling this issue. I can implement this information in my essay to create a point that although the government wants to get more intelligence, it would be preferable in a matter that the masses do not know about so it is not made into a big deal like this case. Brandom then goes on to explaining that not much is known to exactly why the FBI is trying to force Apple to make such a drastic change to their encrypted software in order to get access to one phone. There is a commercially available tool called the IP-BOX that costs $350 and it allows a user to brute force past an iPhone’s lock screen between six seconds to seventeen hours. This information shows that it is very possible that the FBI is simply using this case in order to try and get as much power as they can. This means that the case is no longer about simply accessing an attacker’s phone but rather a direct attack on encryption which is both relevant and important to my topic of encryption being banned.

Greenberg, Andy. "Proposed State Bans on Phone Encryption Make Zero Sense." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 27 Jan. 2016. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

            Greenberg begins his article by explaining that never in history has a single state determined whether we could have secure encryption on our smartphones or not, but now it is happening. He describes how a California state legislator has proposed a bill that would ban the retail sale of any smartphone that features full-disk encryption. This is a security measure that was made to ensure that no one can decrypt and read your phone’s contents except the owner. The scary part is that New York has also proposed a similar bill for its state, and all of this information is useful since it means that multiple states are trying to pass this ban and if one is successfully able to do so, other states will also attempt the same thing. The bill is worded in a way that explains that its intentions is to give law enforcement the ability to access the phones of criminals and victims when their phones are seized as evidence. Greenberg also looks at the fact that even if an encryption ban was deemed a reasonable privacy sacrifice for the sake of law enforcement, it would at least make sense if it was on a national level but this bill is on a state level so all it would do is compromise the security of people’s data in that state alone. This is important information because I can make the point that this bill would not prevent terrorism and it could not help any issue that is on a national scale so all it would cause is an increase in cyber-attacks in that state. This bill is also problematic for all technology companies as they would have to make special smartphones for those specific states that fits into the states’ anti-encryption laws. Greenberg makes a very good point that if a criminal was smart enough to conduct to cyber-attacks, they would simply just use an iPhone from a state that is not from New York or California since the law does not matter to them. This is a very good point that I could use in my essay to support why a state wide ban would be highly illogical.

Cyril, Malkia. "Black Americans and Encryption: The Stakes Are Higher than Apple v FBI." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 21 Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

Cyril starts the article by making an interesting comparison between what is going on in the Apple vs FBI case and what happened with Martin Luther King Jr. Cyril explains that when the FBI labeled Martin Luther King Jr as a “dangerous” threat to America’s national security, they began tapping his phones. This was then followed by a long history of spying on black activists in the United States. What Cyril is getting at is that if the FBI can call something dangerous in order to justify their actions of spying on people, then the same could apply to encryption and the attacker’s phone in order to have the ability to spy on a national scale. This fact is an important detail that I could use to further push the idea that the Apple v. FBI case is more than just about getting into an individual’s phone but rather gaining the access to everyone’s information through a backdoor. Cyril furthermore argues that this fight between Apple and the FBI also effects the black community. According to Cyril the Department of Homeland Security has been monitoring the activities of famous black activists since the Ferguson uprisings, and if the encryption backdoor passes then the government could simply label the activists as dangerous and then go after them with ease. This information can be applied to the fact that the FBI will have the power to shut down the voices of people they simply do not like. This is a violation of democracy since we cannot have a healthy democracy without the voice of every individual.

Smith, Lindsey J. "Donald Trump on Apple Encryption Battle: 'Who Do They Think They Are?'" The Verge. Vox Media, 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

            Smith in this article writes about what republican presidential candidate Donald Trump thinks in regards to the court case of Apple v. FBI. Donald Trump during an interview on Fox and Friends said "To think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cellphone? Who do they think they are?" This shows that he is a supporter of the FBI in the case and that he thinks the government should be able to bypass any encryption in order to get the intelligence they need. This is relevant because I can use this information to show who is for or against the banning of encryption. Trump adds on that if the backdoor was created to bypass Apple’s encryption, it would only be used once to "find out what happened [and] why it happened" and if there are "other people involved." The problem with this is that one man’s guarantee that it will only be used once is not enough to justify reducing the security levels of all Americans. Plus, it does not matter if the government only uses it once, its entire existence is creates the possibility for the software to fall into the wrong hands and create a cyber-catastrophe. This information is very relevant because it shows that encryption becoming banned will become much more likely if Donald Trump was put into office. Smith furthermore adds that Trump has stated before that he wants the ability to monitor the internet and to "take back the internet" from ISIS. Even though the internet technically belongs to everyone, misuse of it should be prevented however going after encryption is not the correct path.